TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Regulation 6(18) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 required the employee to be given a further opportunity to file written briefs only after the Presenting Officer had filed his briefs; (ii) Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for breach of natural justice and prejudice, and whether the appellate hearing cured any procedural deficiency; (iii) What relief followed on the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether Regulation 6(18) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 required the employee to be given a further opportunity to file written briefs only after the Presenting Officer had filed his briefs.
Analysis: The regulation contemplated two alternative courses after completion of evidence: the Inquiring Authority could either hear both sides or permit both sides to file written briefs within the prescribed period. The phrase "respective cases" showed that the written briefs were meant to be filed by each side in relation to its own case. The provision did not require sequential filing, nor did it oblige one party to wait for the other's brief before submitting its own.
Conclusion: Regulation 6(18) did not create any right to a second or sequential opportunity to file written briefs after the Presenting Officer's brief.
Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for breach of natural justice and prejudice, and whether the appellate hearing cured any procedural deficiency.
Analysis: The Court held that the employee had not shown any prejudice caused by the procedure adopted. A post-decisional appellate hearing had been granted, though not required by the regulation, and the employee had an opportunity to meet the case against him. In the circumstances, the alleged defect did not amount to a violation of natural justice warranting interference. The Court also declined to apply the useless formality theory as a basis for deciding the case, but found that the facts disclosed no failure of justice.
Conclusion: There was no sustainable violation of natural justice, and the disciplinary action could not be invalidated on that ground.
Issue (iii): What relief followed on the facts of the case.
Analysis: Since the courts below had not examined the merits of the disputed documents, the appropriate course was to restore the writ appeal and have the High Court consider the expert examination of the originals. The Court directed filing of the original documents relied upon by both sides and provided that the outcome of the expert report would determine whether the dismissal order stood or had to be set aside.
Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Division Bench for further consideration limited to the expert examination and its consequences.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the findings of violation of natural justice were set aside, and the matter was sent back for limited reconsideration on the authenticity of the disputed documents.
Ratio Decidendi: Regulation 6(18) permits either hearing or simultaneous written briefs by both sides after evidence closes, and a disciplinary order will not be set aside for an alleged procedural breach unless the employee shows actual prejudice affecting the result.
TaxTMI 
